There was a Wiki leaks news article about how the US basically
instructed the conservative government what to put into C-32.
Peter Braid has not shown any interest in even the simplest example of I
should be able to watch a DVD that I purchased on my blackberry.
Having said that we should still try.
Darryl
Russell McOrmond wrote:
> On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 4:06 PM, unsolicited <unsolicited at swiz.ca> wrote:
>>> I think this idea, unfortunately, will be very true in many areas and bills.
>> The Conservatives no longer having to pander in any way to any other party.
>>>> A majority government is a majority government, not matter what
> party is in power. While I am not a fan of single-party majority
> governments, it is unfortunately the norm in Canada both federally and
> provincially.
>>>> Things like gun registry and crime legislation, despite being
>> demonstratively shown to not make sense, to not achieve the desired goal, or
>> to not be what the majority of Canadians want, will go ahead without regard
>> to other voices - be they parliamentarians, or citizenry.
>>>> While this is the nature of majority governments, it is always a
> matter of framing issues in a way that is consistent with the values
> of the person you are speaking to.
>> We may differ on the importance of registering a long-gun, and
> whether that is more an emotional reaction to École Polytechnique
> Massacre than good gun control policy.
>> Ignoring that for the moment, the concept can still be used to our
> benefit even if you don't agree with what the majority of
> Conservatives and people in rural areas (Including the NDP from rural
> areas) believe on the issue.
>> Examples:
>> The long computer registry and IT control
>http://creform.ca/5209>>> At the end of my intervention in front of the C-32 committee,
> talking about non-owner locks on information technology protected by
> C-32, I said:
>> "For no other type of property would this be considered. We would
> never legally protect non-owner locks to all guns in a country where
> many are uncomfortable with the mere registration of long guns. We
> would never legally protect non-owner locks on our homes, alleging it
> was necessary to protect the insurance industry from fraud. We would
> never legally protect non-owner locks on our cars, allegedly to ensure
> that automobiles could never be used as a getaway vehicle."
>>>> Given what you are feeling about the Conservative crime legislation
> proposals, I suspect you will agree it is critically important than
> the Conservatives don't confuse copyright with a "law and order"
> issue.
>> Some of the same groups that Conservatives typically distrust
> (violent video game creators, sex-infested movies and music, artist
> unions and people who generally hang around at expensive galas asking
> for government handouts, etc :-) allege copyright reform is all about
> stopping bad people from "stealing".
>> We just need to clarify that it is about unfair taxes
> (inappropriately applied compulsory licenses), attacks on property
> rights (TPMs), double-dipping (overlapping royalty schemes), and
> excessive regulation (Copyright applying to private activities in ones
> home, purely technical processes like ephemeral recordings/etc).
>> All the political rhetoric we would like to see MPs express were
> expressed by Conservatives at C-32 committee hearings -- just not
> consistantly as they don't yet understand the connection between
> various issues.
>> The greatest problem is the lack of technical understanding to
> realise that TPMs don't reduce copyright infringement, just allow a
> subset of technology hardware manufacturers and software authors to
> circumvent the traditional contours of many different federal and
> provincial laws.
>> In other words, who are the worst "bad actors" abusing the law is
> quite different than what they have been told so far -- especially
> from those protectionist Democrats south of the border :-)
>>>> I'll be glad to be shown wrong.
>>>> The only sure way to lose this game is to decide not to play. I'd
> rather be considered naive than apathetic.
>> There are 3 people who have offices in the area that KWLUG serves
> that could be influential to this issue, and I hope we do everything
> we can to harness this.
>> And it would be great for people to "pass it on" to people outside
> of the region you know so we can ensure we have a successful summer.
>>